Legislators run for the exits on SOPA/PIPA after protests

posted at 11:20 am on January 19, 2012 by Ed Morrissey

In darkness, there is apparently much sunlight. As a number of Internet sites either went dark or protested the proposed anti-piracy bills circulating in Congress, a number of sponsors ran for cover, reports The Hill:

GOP Sens. Roy Blunt (Mo.), Orrin Hatch (Utah), John Boozman (Ark.) and Marco Rubio (Fla.) dropped their support for the Senate version of the anti-piracy legislation, and Sen. John Cornyn (Texas), who leads the Senate GOP’s campaign arm, said the legislation should be put on hold.

Hatch, Rubio, Blunt and Boozman all pulled their sponsorship of the Senate bill.

“Rushing something with such potential for far-reaching consequences is something I cannot support,” Hatch said in a statement.

And a few climbed off the fence:

Other lawmakers staked out their opposition for the first time. Sen. Mark Kirk (R-Ill.) and Tea Party favorite Sen. Jim DeMint (R-S.C.) came out against SOPA and PIPA, with DeMint labeling the anti-piracy measures “misguided bills that will cause more harm than good.”

Rand Paul, who had already opposed PIPA (the Senate version of the bill), pledged to filibuster the bill in order to defeat it. He’ll get his chance next Tuesday, because Harry Reid still hasn’t given up on the entertainment industry’s big wish-list item. He has a cloture vote scheduled at that time, and a defeat will mean the end of both bills, probably for the rest of this session.

That doesn’t mean a complete end to the issue. Rep. Lamar Smith (R-TX) insists that his bill will move forward, and that opponents don’t have a coherent argument against its current form. Smith says that the government would have to get a court order to shut down websites and that their power won’t be abused. However, that is still a prior restraint without a proper form of due process for the accused, whose property should not be seized (which is essentially what this is) without a solid finding of guilt, and not just a court injunction, which is what SOPA allows. It’s essentially the same process as we saw in Sackett v EPA, only with a smidge more of judicial review.

John Boehner says he will put the brakes on SOPA consideration in the House as well:

Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) expressed a reluctance to move forward with SOPA on Wednesday, with both sides still divided over the bill and its potential consequences.

“Listen, this bill is in committee. It’s had a number of hearings. It went through a markup, and it’s pretty clear to many of us that there’s a lack of consensus at this point,” Boehner said. “And I would expect the committee to continue its work to try to build a consensus before this bill moves.”

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

The tyranical left can save a few years and not wait for the Supreme Court to shot down free speech.
Obamascare skink and Sebelipus has power and grants waivers. This central control stunt would have been the same and “friiends” would have been granted waivers.

Smith says that the government would have to get a court order to shut down websites and that their power won’t be abused.

Thank God for that, I feel MUCH better.

However, that is still a prior restraint without a proper form of due process for the accused, whose property should not be seized (which is essentially what this is) without a solid finding of guilt, and not just a court injunction, which is what SOPA allows.

Ain’t it great when legislation is actually read before it gets passed?

And I doubt a single one who actually read it understood what it was saying. Do you really thing Senator Goldbrick knows what a “DNS block” is or what its implications to the network of DNS servers are?

Oh, and another point. Hollywood is firmly in the far left camp. Even if you believed that something like this legislation was nominally good, why would you reward far left fat cats who will turn around and bankroll your opponents?

When will the Republicans learn how to play the game?

I’ve been arguing for a while that the Republicans should be offering to “compromise” with Obama by raising taxes specifically aimed at the entertainment industry.

Oh, and we need a second look at copyright too. Just because Disney wants to hold onto its characters for ever is no reason to let them decide what our policy should be…

Oh, and we need a second look at copyright too. Just because Disney wants to hold onto its characters for ever is no reason to let them decide what our policy should be…

18-1 on January 19, 2012 at 11:33 AM

Exactly. Orginally, the copyrights were to be held for x years after the death of the holder.

Corporations are ‘people’ and these vampires never die.

Definitely needs to be relooked so that eventually, anything will and must enter the public domain. Or to rephrase Oboobie: There comes a time when you’ve made enough off a copyright. I’d say 21 years sounds just about right for a corporation or 21 years after the death of the original holder.

Imagine all the cool stuff that could have been spun off by creative types with Mickey Mouse or Fantasia as their muse. Heh!

Our oh-so-saintly senators should be smart enough to realize that internet porn is as close to a paid-for-by-lobbyists, high-end, DC call girl as Joe Six-Pack is ever gonna get. And you don’t mess with that.

Honest question here: don’t property rights owners already have recourse through the courts to protect their intellectual property? That is, as Ed notes above, they force the removal of material or if necessary the shutdown of a website after prevailing in court? And if so, the existing laws are exactly what we need and any additional law would be some flavor of attempting to circumvent the regular judicial process?

Honest question here: don’t property rights owners already have recourse through the courts to protect their intellectual property? That is, as Ed notes above, they force the removal of material or if necessary the shutdown of a website after prevailing in court? And if so, the existing laws are exactly what we need and any additional law would be some flavor of attempting to circumvent the regular judicial process?

TexasDan on January 19, 2012 at 11:53 AM

Yes, that is what the Digital Millenium Copyright Act (DMCA) was designed for.

Yes, that is what the Digital Millenium Copyright Act (DMCA) was designed for.

Yup, and in its current form these pieces of legislation gut the DMCA and the provision it has in it that basically says that if a website like HotAir is found to have a link to pirated stuff in its comments section and acts in good faith and removes it then the website cannot be held liable. For those pushing this garbage legislation, one link to pirated stuff on a website would be enough for the government to block internet users from gaining access to said website.

this will be back. follow the money, members of the ruling class in both parties have been bought by big hollywood, this stinks and it is pitiful and shameful. nothing like a bunch of blowhard, clueless politicians trying to regulate and control a thing which they have absolutely no clue about. completely out of touch with the real world.

Finally PIPA co-sponsor Kelly Ayotte (R) NH rescinded her support of PIPA today. She was getting eviscerated on FaceBook for her support. Once again a person elected by limiting government voters gets to DC and joins the club first thing. Very disappointing that she had been a sponsor before that position became untenable.

“Rushing something with such potential for far-reaching consequences is something I cannot support,” Hatch said in a statement.

Boehner said. “And I would expect the committee to continue its work to try to build a consensus before this bill moves.”

Pay attention to the kind of words liberals use. It’s all delay this and next time that…. Whenever something like this blows up in their faces, they never take a step backward. It’s always just put on hold. They’ll try to squeeze the next item on the agenda past the next media cycle, and in a few years, this same bill will come back up but with a different random acronym, until we miss it or just get fed up with fighting about it.

But every time they get one of these things passed, it’s a permanent fixture, never to be discussed again. Then they plunge right ahead to the next encroachment on our rights.

Obama Socialized Medicine is the first time in living memory there’s ever been halfway serious talk about actually REPEALING any of this crap. But what are the odds of that happening? The “best-case” scenario is that they take a few hundred pages off before it’s implemented. The GOP will try to declare that massive collectivization project a “victory” because it only confiscated an additional one trillion dollars out of the private economy, instead of two trillion. And all the while, liberals will be doggedly drafting the ten thousand pages of regulations that will implement everything in the original statute, along with a whole lot more.

Honest question here: don’t property rights owners already have recourse through the courts to protect their intellectual property? That is, as Ed notes above, they force the removal of material or if necessary the shutdown of a website after prevailing in court? And if so, the existing laws are exactly what we need and any additional law would be some flavor of attempting to circumvent the regular judicial process?

Yup, and in its current form these pieces of legislation gut the DMCA and the provision it has in it that basically says that if a website like HotAir is found to have a link to pirated stuff in its comments section and acts in good faith and removes it then the website cannot be held liable. For those pushing this garbage legislation, one link to pirated stuff on a website would be enough for the government to block internet users from gaining access to said website

Exactly why my first thought was: if these reps pass this mess I guess we’ll just have to post copyrighted materials all over thier websites, then watch the panic ensue. It would be sheer awesomeness to see the gov’t have to shut it’s own websites down.
Here that attack watch?

Why is it, so much bad chit’ have Republican finger prints on it? Wasn’t it a Republican who brought us the ban on “light fricking bulbs”? And a Republican President was responsible for the grand daddy of then all, the EPA. You know why they do it. They want to curry favor with liberals. I sure hope some of these guys get primaried and primaried HARD! Expecially that light bulb fool.

Oh, and another point. Hollywood is firmly in the far left camp. Even if you believed that something like this legislation was nominally good, why would you reward far left fat cats who will turn around and bankroll your opponents?

When will the Republicans learn how to play the game?

I’ve been arguing for a while that the Republicans should be offering to “compromise” with Obama by raising taxes specifically aimed at the entertainment industry.

Oh, and we need a second look at copyright too. Just because Disney wants to hold onto its characters for ever is no reason to let them decide what our policy should be…

18-1 on January 19, 2012 at 11:33 AM

Let’s not also forget that this “industry” actively propagandizes against us as conservative, and that their entertainment products celebrate decadent values.

I have been rereading Article One, Section Eight and I just can’t seem to find their authority to pass this bill. Wasn’t Boehner going to insist that all bills show their constitutional authority? What happened to that?

Why is it, so much bad chit’ have Republican finger prints on it? Wasn’t it a Republican who brought us the ban on “light fricking bulbs”? And a Republican President was responsible for the grand daddy of then all, the EPA. You know why they do it. They want to curry favor with liberals. I sure hope some of these guys get primaried and primaried HARD! Expecially that light bulb fool.

Gotta watch this one carefully. The bipartisan support for this doesn’t surprise me. Look at asset forfeiture laws these days. Seize cash and make people prove its not part of a criminal enterprise. Get pulled over and have $5K in cash and you’re a drug dealer. Someone posts a copyright infringement and take out a whole website. No proof needed.

So funny how people can get outraged about this losing your right to the Internet stuff (which I am too BTW), & yet, look at the PAtriot Act, other federal ‘laws’ or policies stealing away our rights, cops siezing someone’s private property without a conviction, & KEEPING it,and how bout how the governments can steal your children from your very home, with no evidence, only on an anonymous person’s ‘testimony’ that you might be doing something ‘bad’?
How many children are ripped from their parents’ homes & forced to live with complete strangers?
Not much public outrage about that stuff.
But don’t F$%^ iwth my INTERNET BY GOD!
Mind you, these bills are power grabs.
But so many ‘conservatives’ will certainly justify the loss of another’s rights to satisy their own busy-body intentions.

Gotta watch this one carefully. The bipartisan support for this doesn’t surprise me. Look at asset forfeiture laws these days. Seize cash and make people prove its not part of a criminal enterprise. Get pulled over and have $5K in cash and you’re a drug dealer. Someone posts a copyright infringement and take out a whole website. No proof needed.

PIPA/SOPA are sideways attacks on freedom of the press (or of the only “free” press) that now exists. The “News”papers trying to recoup their lost ad revenues, the “Nightly News” trying to herd the plebes back into their barns. The bicoastal entertainment mega industries trying to bottle up the indies and bootstrap producers.

I wonder why Google participates in this protest after bending over for the Chinese?

Chris Dodd: There is something wrong with your brain. I think you should be checked to see if spirochetes have invaded and made you a drooler.

I am still mad about the copy protect controls. I just wanted to copy a broadcast movie so I can see it later, and I only have a DVD, but the machine will not let me copy – lest I try to sell it

IN case I want to commit a crime, I must be stopped

A friend was talking about all the laws they keep passing to control us. I argue that as citizens become less involved with the Christian and Jewish faiths, they lose the understanding of free will, and freedom.

The ten commandments say: Thou shalt not kill, steal etc. They do not say: thou shalt not have a sword, lest you kill. The morality of the Bible is an after-the-fact morality. You are free to pick up a sword, but if you kill, you will be accountable

The secularist despises giving power to someone who might abuse the power. They want the power reserved to the State, so the citizens cannot do bad things. Makes sense when the secularist does not believe in the God who empowers man and grants free will

The internet crowd is loaded with anti religious, but this restriction touches them personally. Hope one day they catch on the lust to control has no limits

Gotta watch this one carefully. The bipartisan support for this doesn’t surprise me. Look at asset forfeiture laws these days. Seize cash and make people prove its not part of a criminal enterprise. Get pulled over and have $5K in cash and you’re a drug dealer. Someone posts a copyright infringement and take out a whole website. No proof needed.

oryguncon on January 19, 2012 at 1:57 PM

Holder was busy this afternoon…

Feds Shutter Megaupload, Arrest Executives

Megaupload, the popular file-sharing site, was shuttered Thursday and its executives indicted by the Justice Department in what the authorities said was “among the largest criminal copyright cases ever brought by the United States.”

Seven individuals connected to the Hong Kong-based site were indicted on a variety of charges, including criminal copyright infringement and conspiracy to commit money laundering. Four of the members of what the authorities called a five-year “racketeering conspiracy” were arrested Thursday in Auckland, New Zealand, the authorities said.

One of those arrested was Kim Schmitz, aka Kim Dotcom, Megaupload’s founder. His attorney, Ira Rothken of California, said neither he nor his 37-year-old client, who resides in Hong Kong and New Zealand, was given the opportunity to surrender. Schmitz was arrested without notice, he said.

Right after this happened, the hacker group Anonymous immediately hit the Department of Justice website with a DOS attack.